?

Log in

No account? Create an account

"friends-locked" post

Dec. 2nd, 2009 | 12:01 am



though this is not to say that my journal is "friends-only," some of my posts are "friends-locked." take it as you will.

Link | Leave a comment {5} | Share

A Butlerian Analysis of an American Political Event

Dec. 2nd, 2005 | 12:53 pm

"It is important to understand performativity — which is distinct from performance — through the more limited notion of resignification. I'm still thinking about subversive repetition, which is a category in Gender Trouble, but in the place of something like parody I would now emphasise the complex ways in which resignification works in political discourse."

Judith Butler

What is 'resignification'? What is 'performance'? What is 'subversive repetition'? And what role do they play in the American culturo-politic?

Resignification is a way to re-appropriate images, bodies, signs, symbols, and conventions, in order to subvert them. It is the coupling of irony and resistance to the oppressive modes of masculine discourse in the white, capitalist patriarchy. Consider, then, the storied Kanye and 50 Cent beef. Kanye, in his now infamous quip, resignified the media mode of "telethon," in order to transform it into a venue for political resistance and protest. Telethons (typically the property of white hegemons) were historically an "apolitical" (in that nothing is apolitical) vehicle, and employed the 'ethic of giving' to unify silence and charity, and to reify the dominance of white over black. 'Giving' was a white-to-black phenomenon, or, a subject to other phenomenon. Kanye's performative utterance shifted the paradigm to subsume a paralogical play on the Ameriwhite politick and the ethic of charity. 50 Cent, on the other hand, responded with the ironic re-appropriation of white power as black resistance. In this way, the discourse is pushed up a level, to the performosphere of speech act.

Performance is play, both at the ontological and ironical levels; I will cover this in the next post.

Link | Leave a comment | Share

Toward a Kantian Ontology of the Erection (Post 2 of ?)

Dec. 2nd, 2005 | 12:25 pm

The Great Destroyer is also the Great Phallus. Kant's programme of masculine cybernetics in The Critique of Pure Reason is best understood through the antinomies(395a/396a):

Thesis: The world has a beginning in time, and is also limited as regards space.

Antithesis: The world has no beginning, and no limits in space; it is infinite as regards both time and space.

Of the consideration of each "opposite" valence: the masculogic rejects the simultaneity of opposite possibility and so ensures a circumscripted "causal closure" of the logical universe. This results in a no-less-arbitrary "synthesis" of the "false" and the "true." But a simple Foucauldian "immanent" criticism shows that there are, and need be, more possibilities than thesis and antithesis. We proceed analytically: the 'total world' can be infinite in time but not space. The 'total world' can be infinite in space but not time. These two theses show the provinciality of binary thinking.

Masculine cybernesis is thus shown to be illogically inexorable in its description of the world; for that reason, I call it the "ontology of the erection," in that the 'erection' is the inexorable drive (understood as a neo-Freudian mechanism) of masculogic to 'limn' reality. Such a masculine need is akin to the need to copulate and ejaculate, and also to own and dominate. Man not only tortures nature for her secrets, but also tortures reality for hers.

Link | Leave a comment {1} | Share

Toward a Kantian Ontology of the Erection

Dec. 1st, 2005 | 10:17 pm

Toward a Kantian Ontology of the Erection: The Inexorability of Phallogocentric Rationality


The technotropic structure of masculogic is that of the derivation; that is, a deductive inference from parts to wholes. Parts are the "premises," while (w)holes are the "conclusions." The analyto-rational autopoietic suggests that phallogic is the quintessential "topic neutral" discipline, in that "discipline" is always a taming. In this case, the taming is of possibilities to realities of any text or intertext whatsoever, by means of "soundness."

To this end we have the soundness theorems of sentential and predicate phallogic, ergo:
"if X1. . .Xn |- Y, then X1. . .Xn |= Y."


The soundness of phallogic is the binary guarantee. The structure of phallogic is a bivalent monolethis. Through this bifurcation, the analyto-rationalist exercises his technopower over fuzzy, dialethic, and feminist logics of possibility and omnivalence.

The feminist logic of possibility is one which resists inexorability, and thus resists the essentializing power of the phallogic erection. In this logic of possibility, (which David K. Lewis calls possibilia, meaning 'idioverses') technocratic "derivation" is subsumed by a larger, more holistic seeing of the properties of valence; namely, truth-bearing. While the phallogician is constrained by propositional valence and calcified "fact," the gynologician focuses on possibility, which patterns a new cybernetics. Feminist logics, in this way, formally resist the logicism and architechtonic of Kantian erecto-idealism.

In the next few several posts, I will provide a hermeneutics of phallogocentric, analyto-rational discourse by deconstructing its "truest" exemplar: Kant. I will demonstrate that all Kantian explananda are a fetishization, as well as demonstrate through problematic method the erecto-centrism of the transcendental aesthetic and rational ontology, generally.

Link | Leave a comment | Share